TrumpPutingate III: the beginning of the end

#3,626
#3,626
Obsessed said:
Yes. Apparently Trump won bebcause of Facebook memes. I mean, I knew libs were brain dead, but a meme swayed their vote....
Click to expand...

I’d love to know if there’s something I missed. But it seems like we are going to put people on trial for talking trash about Hillary. Talk about a frightening precedent.
 
#3,629
#3,629
Obsessed said:
Let’s be real man...

Folks who were voting R- voted R
Folks who weee voting D-voted D

Your party ****ed up. Hillary ****ed up. She alienated the independents with the deplorable comment.
Didn’t spend any time with the folks she thought was a lock.

Y’all lost a lot of the black and Latino vote...

Russia didn’t do this.... you did....
Click to expand...

You, You all. Just keep putting everyone in the same basket with your false assumptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,630
#3,630
Obsessed said:
Let’s be real man...

Folks who were voting R- voted R
Folks who weee voting D-voted D

Your party ****ed up. Hillary ****ed up. She alienated the independents with the deplorable comment.
Didn’t spend any time with the folks she thought was a lock.

Y’all lost a lot of the black and Latino vote...

Russia didn’t do this.... you did....
Click to expand...

She screwed up the most by using the media to ensure trump was her competition
 
#3,634
#3,634
Vol8188 said:
How can I write exactly what you said and be accused of using a straw man? Are you just trolling?

What is their crime?
Click to expand...

Apparently I cannot carry on a conversation with two dumba$$es at the same time.

Conspiracy is the crime. Read the indictment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,635
#3,635
Mick said:
Apparently I cannot carry on a conversation with two dumba$$es at the same time.

Conspiracy is the crime. Read the indictment.
Click to expand...

Don’t be so hard on yourself. There are a lot things you can’t do.
Comprehension is one of them. (You seem to struggle with basic English as well)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,639
#3,639
Vol8188 said:
I’d love to know if there’s something I missed. But it seems like we are going to put people on trial for talking trash about Hillary. Talk about a frightening precedent.
Click to expand...

I responded to you with the statutes involved. I thought it was pretty clear.
 
#3,640
#3,640
Mick said:
Apparently I cannot carry on a conversation with two dumba$$es at the same time.

Conspiracy is the crime. Read the indictment.
Click to expand...

What was the grand conspiracy? Were they planning a terrorist attack?

Conspiracy to do what?
 
#3,643
#3,643
hog88 said:
At wort it’s a conspiracy against Hillary Clinton, not America. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

I've never heard the expression at wort. It was also a conspiracy for Trump. Put both together add Jill and Bernie throw in BLM and its America.
 
#3,646
#3,646
Vol8188 said:
From what I remember you just told me to google something. I did, and still don’t fully understand
Click to expand...

Sorry, there was also a response to your response. Go back to the FEC site and click on the definition link for independent expenditure. That seemed to me the most likely angle they'd be taking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,647
#3,647
Oh my. FEC violation by Trump heating up. He looks guilty as **** here, and now Cohen's admission may force them to launch investigation.

Once again, Cohen's language has been parsed, and now I agree it can be interpreted that Cohen did not actually make the $130 K payment himself...

"...Cohen’s carefully worded statement said: “I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford. Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly.”

But Cohen’s statement admitted only that he used his personal funds for facilitating the payment, not the payment itself. The facilitation, Noble said, could simply have been the cost of setting up a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation through which, according to the Wall Street Journal, the payment was made.

Cohen’s statement did not specifically say whether he also made the actual payment, leaving open the possibility that others — Trump himself, a friend, a corporation or even a foreign national — may have put up the funds."

Michael Cohen screwed up with Stormy Daniels statement, ex-FEC lawyer says
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,648
#3,648
OuterBanksVol said:
Oh my. FEC violation by Trump heating up. He looks guilty as **** here, and now Cohen's admission may force them to launch investigation.

Once again, Cohen's language has been parsed, and now I agree it can be interpreted that Cohen did not actually make the $130 K payment himself...

"...Cohen’s carefully worded statement said: “I used my own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford. Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly.”

But Cohen’s statement admitted only that he used his personal funds for facilitating the payment, not the payment itself. The facilitation, Noble said, could simply have been the cost of setting up a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation through which, according to the Wall Street Journal, the payment was made.

Cohen’s statement did not specifically say whether he also made the actual payment, leaving open the possibility that others — Trump himself, a friend, a corporation or even a foreign national — may have put up the funds."
Click to expand...

They will be along shortly to sweep this away and blame Obama for stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,649
#3,649
More FEC stuff... penalties/ potential crimes...

"Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, apparently paid Daniels off by setting up a shell corporation called Essential Consultants LLC, apparently for the sole purpose of handling this bribe. Even though Cohen used this method to work outside the campaign itself, Ryan argued, the money "was a payment for the purpose for influencing the 2016 presidential election" and therefore the Trump campaign was required to report it as a campaign expenditure. Failure to do so could constitute a violation of campaign finance law and could even be a crime, particularly if Trump or his campaign deliberately hid the expenditure from the FEC.

An even more interesting question is where that money came from. As Ryan pointed out, it's not just that failure to report the source itself could constitute a violation of the law. The donation itself could be illegal, depending upon its source. If Trump paid the hush money directly from his own pocket, that's not illegal — candidates have a legal right to spend as much of their own money as they wish running for federal office. But if that money came from the Trump Organization or a third party, that could violate laws preventing corporate donations or donations exceeding strict individual limits to campaigns.

...The Edwards trial ended in one acquittal and mistrials on five other counts, but the whole situation demonstrates that the DOJ, at the very least, does indeed consider hush money paid through outside channels to cover up personal indiscretions as campaign donations. That should make it more difficult for either the FEC or the DOJ to simply brush off the complaint from Common Cause.

The FEC has a legal obligation to vote on whether or not to open an investigation into Trump in response to this complaint. If it fails to open an investigation, Common Cause would then have a legal right to sue. But the hope is that the federal government acts consistently with its approach to the Edwards investigation. If the FEC opens an investigation, all evidence gathered will eventually be made available to the public, so even if Trump faces no legal penalties, the public will potentially find out more about where the $130,000 to pay Daniels off came from."

Trump’s porn-star payoff may have been illegal: Will it matter? - Salon.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,650
#3,650
OuterBanksVol said:
More FEC stuff... penalties/ potential crimes...

"Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, apparently paid Daniels off by setting up a shell corporation called Essential Consultants LLC, apparently for the sole purpose of handling this bribe. Even though Cohen used this method to work outside the campaign itself, Ryan argued, the money "was a payment for the purpose for influencing the 2016 presidential election" and therefore the Trump campaign was required to report it as a campaign expenditure. Failure to do so could constitute a violation of campaign finance law and could even be a crime, particularly if Trump or his campaign deliberately hid the expenditure from the FEC.

An even more interesting question is where that money came from. As Ryan pointed out, it's not just that failure to report the source itself could constitute a violation of the law. The donation itself could be illegal, depending upon its source. If Trump paid the hush money directly from his own pocket, that's not illegal — candidates have a legal right to spend as much of their own money as they wish running for federal office. But if that money came from the Trump Organization or a third party, that could violate laws preventing corporate donations or donations exceeding strict individual limits to campaigns.

...The Edwards trial ended in one acquittal and mistrials on five other counts, but the whole situation demonstrates that the DOJ, at the very least, does indeed consider hush money paid through outside channels to cover up personal indiscretions as campaign donations. That should make it more difficult for either the FEC or the DOJ to simply brush off the complaint from Common Cause.

The FEC has a legal obligation to vote on whether or not to open an investigation into Trump in response to this complaint. If it fails to open an investigation, Common Cause would then have a legal right to sue. But the hope is that the federal government acts consistently with its approach to the Edwards investigation. If the FEC opens an investigation, all evidence gathered will eventually be made available to the public, so even if Trump faces no legal penalties, the public will potentially find out more about where the $130,000 to pay Daniels off came from."

Trump’s porn-star payoff may have been illegal: Will it matter? - Salon.com
Click to expand...

Salon.com , lol, now that's where you should go for real investigative journalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top